Friday, October 10, 2008

3 Down, 47 to Go

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to full marriage based on the state constitution's equal protection clause. That means Connectuicut joins California and Massachussets as the third state in the US to allow full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The Corner predictably freaks out.

I don't know how many times I've said this, but I'll say it again. No government has the right to force any church or religious institution to marry a couple the church doesn't feel it is appropriate to marry. If such a law was proposed, I would fight tooth and nail against it. But that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about the 1,097 extra rights, priviledges, and protections that the state grants to married couples, regardless of their religious affiliation.

People like K-Lo say these special rights are necessary, because we need to incent couples to form a loving, stable, and committed relationship in order to raise children in the best environment possible. And she's 100% right that such a relationship is the best environment possible in order to raise children. But the state has married millions of couples who are not, have no intention of becoming, and in some cases are physically incapable of becoming, a loving, stable, and committed relationship in order to raise children. We all remember Brittany Spears' marriage in Las Vegas a few years ago. That drunken, spur-of-the-moment relationship lasted a whopping 3 days, and the only reason it lasted that long was that the divorce courts were closed over the weekend. Does K-Lo believe Brittany should or should not have had the right to marry? What about a 90 year old couple with no living relatives who love each other and simply want to spend the rest of their years together?

The Connecticut court didn't "create" the right to marry; the Connecticut legislature did that when it wrote the state's original marriage laws. The court simply observed that if the state's going to create a right to marry for some people but not for others, it needs to have a pretty damn good reason not to give it to those others. In the end, nobody has been able to come up with an explanation that doesn't boil down to gays = icky. Thus, the decision.

No comments: